Elements of the Play "Bona"

A. Blocking and Projection

The play began with an odd positioning of the main character. "Bona", the main character, was to the very left of the stage murmuring or perhaps loudly talking to herself or perhaps praying to a religious object regarding the recent separation they had with her boyfriend. The theatrical term for it would be "house left, stage right." Then she shifted to the center of the stage where she enacted some of her odd online jobs, which includes fortune telling and teaching English. The term for this position is not so clear, but the closest would be "up-stage." After this first scene marks a sudden change in both atmosphere and space displayed by the blocking. The first scene, in terms of blocking, was very stable. There were only two positions involved and it was done by one character. By contrast, the scene after this involved several characters---Bona's son, her bestfriend and her bestfriends' boyfriend---and a great amount of shifting of positions. Bona, herself, moved to all corners of the stage: house left, house right, up-stage, down-stage etc. The audience enjoyed the rambunctious nature of this scene, particularly of Bona’s bestfriend and the boyfriend and how they pushed each other everywhere. I did not. I thought it was too chaotic and there were too many movements and characters, and it made the stage look too small. The theatre was already stiffening in itself due to its small size, so having to see such violations of space made me feel more uneasy. I think it also looked too chaotic because it was a huge step from the first scene. The other scenes in the play were more stable by comparison. Even the scene that had the most characters in it---I believe there were around 10 characters at once---was not as chaotic as that second scene. Several of these characters acted as background characters and did not move around so much. The focus was on the antagonist and primary love-interest of “Bona” and majority of his role was done house right, stage left. My favorite scene is the last scene and I believe it had the best blocking and lighting. It was the scene where Bona burned the main antagonist with heated water. I enjoyed how the main antagonist slowly and painfully crawled from up-stage, a bit to the house right, to down-stage as he screams in agony, continuously being splashed with water by Bona. I thought it was a simple but smooth transition. The manipulation of the light from normal to heavy red also made it more intriguing.

The projection was decent. I noticed there were several tiny microphones above the heads of the characters. One problem that surfaced was a technical one. An audience member seated right next to the sound system and, at times, you could hear a weird interference, which really ruined the immersion one might have had while watching the play. Another problem was when the audience laughed for too long that it became difficult to hear what the characters were saying after the comedic phrase or scene. The lighting was quite good. The first portion of the play did not have skillful use of lighting. It was the same amount of light throughout. Then it became dark and then the spotlight would appear and dexterously focus on the relevant characters. The most use of lighting was the bar scene where the main antagonist expressed his anger due to being eliminated in the first round.

B. Stage Design and Atmosphere

Unlike perhaps the more expensive and grand plays, such as those with fantasy-themes, Bona felt very “basic.” The emphasis was on the story and the interaction of the characters, and the setting was contemporary metro manila, so, overall, stage design was mundane. I did not even recognize the fact that the first person in the stage, Bona herself, was a part of the play. I thought she was simply lighting the candles because she was preparing it for the start of the play; I thought she was part of the stage crew. The reason why is because of what she was wearing. She was wearing an average shirt. It was what any nonchalant, normal person would wear. It was not what I associated with “play” and “theatre.” The stage also looked a bit dirty. I could notice many of its faults, mainly because I was sitting in the balcony; I had a top-down view so I could observe the flooring and the stage as a whole. There was a weird looking dirt down-stage. The background design was hardly noticeable. There were windows and doors on each side, sometimes there would be a big-looking skyscraper, other times it was too dark to notice. They were not dynamic enough to grab your attention, but the focus were on the characters, so in terms of believability, it was convincing enough that immersion was not difficult. I enjoyed the fog-effect though. I don’t what use it served, but the dialogue mentioned someone roasting chicken or something. So, for me, use of the fog was vague, but it still promoted variety in the stage design and atmosphere. Then there was the big screen at the very top of the stage. It was used for showing scenes that were not held in any room, and it also showed what Bona was watching in front of the Television. The interesting thing about this random screen was that they used it to distract the audience, while they were adjusting the stage for the next scene.

C. Character Development

I thought the character development, for Bona, was mainly a downward trend. She grew darker and obsessive and faulty, and finally, vengeful and murderous at the end. The first few scenes showed her being a simple person with some romantic issues. She was lonely but she was healthy as a person and she had healthy relationships, with her sons and her best friend. Then she started being too obsessive with Gino, her main love-interest and antagonist of the play. She created a fan club and became too involved with an irresponsible person who did not care for troubles he is causing everyone and only followed his whims. She became so obsessed with her relations with Gino that she did not stop and think about her relations with other people. She accepted all of Gino’s requests and continued a path of obsession and attention towards one person. At this point, she looked almost like a robot with no sense of self-respect, and only followed what her master, Gino, wanted. At this point, she was not a very interesting character. Her reaction, at the very end, where she finally released herself from the chains she herself put unto was quite weak. Her final rage was done in silence and it still felt robotic. The interview shown at the screen, on the other hand, made her look experienced and different as a person.

D. Motif and other Devices for Impact

The primary motif of the play was the religious statue. There were many scenes that showed Bona praying in front of that religious idol. It is not difficult to notice that pattern because it was always associated with “house left, stage right” and it appeared at the very first scene. I am not sure if I remember correctly but I believe it was Jesus of Nazareth’s statue. This religious statue symbolized religion and christianity in modern Filipino culture and, I think, Bona’s dependency. Bona has a strong desire to be in a relationship, which, in turn, makes her very obsessive and strongly attached. In the sense, Bona depended on the religious statue as much as she depended on her relationship with Gino.

The heated water or the cooking pot  was also a recurring object throughout the play. It played a role in many of the important scenes, including Bona and Gino’s love scene. Every “morning” of Bona’s visit to Gino’s house would lead to her heating up the water for Gino’s bath. And most importantly, it was Bona’s item of violence when she threw its contents at Gino and burned him. This final scene made use of the cooking pot and its sound as a metaphor to describe the breaking of Bona’s emotional threshold.

Lesson: Liberal Perspective, Social Individual, Household, Family, Nature etc

For a person who prefers to have systemized information, in such a way that every concept is related to another in a very rigid and defined manner, hearing about all these concepts in our lecture "forces my finger towards an itch in my scalp." First of all, I understand that the only conventional information we have about "social reality" lies within perspectives and uncertain, or inapplicable even, theories. But this does not negate a systematical orderliness within the perspectives and the concepts that lie within. What I want to do, or write, in this blog entry is arrange all these unconnected concepts, to other known facts of reality, in such a way that I can cleanly comprehend what is being delivered. 

First of all, what is the social contract and the talk about the relevance of the individual in the formation of a nation? So, the social contract is supposedly about the agreement between the civilian and the ruler, and how this agreement forms the creation of the state. Proponents of this idea are Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. A little internet search shows us that these people were all active before the 1800's and inactive after. This part of our World Timeline is essential to note because Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory came during the 1800's and not before. Bio-evolutionary speaking, which is the most scientific perspective, humans are bonded together way back before they were "humans." Socio-power relations can be traced back by simply referencing an evolutionary concept known as "herd behavior." In short, the simple answer to the question of the creation of nations and states is that it is innate and evolutionary. As noted by evolutionary-biologist W.D. Hamilton, It is a "prey-behavior" in the sense that the weak increases its chances of survival by coordinating with other individuals of similar features. The reason as to why this behavior exists is because it was somewhat tested and it worked, otherwise known as 'natural selection.' 

This 'nature-answer', however, becomes vague and unconvincing once the concept of 'freewill' is introduced. But, seeing as cooperation does increase chances of survival wherein survival is almost 100% valued upon by all humans, then it is not so surprising anymore. Then again, authority may fall into tyranny, as shown in history, and civilians might enter a state wherein inclusion within the society endangers their own survival. In that case, the 'ruler' is not innately controlled by 'benevolent' genetic traits but is free to act in any manner he wishes. So, perhaps, by then, the social contract theory applies. But to clarify, I do not think the "agreement" is between the 'state' and the 'individual' but rather it is between 'state' and 'nature.' What is at conflict, by this point, is the survival of the many and the tyrannical will of the powerful. Survival is instinctual whereas will is individualistic. This leads us into thinking that it is not a "contract" at all in the sense that "contract" implies agreement between agents. It is simply the will of the powerful that creates the organization. 

What is the Liberal Individual? John Locke talks about "reasoning human being" and "owning property." There are also mentions of "liabilities", "obligations", "rights", and "duties." 

Let's see...the liberal individual is suppose to make up what is society. However, judging from my earlier analysis, there should only be a limited "liberal individual", and the ruler marks the person with the greatest liberty. The majority should be "natural individuals", as they represent the mandate of nature and survival. John Locke, himself, is a part of the wealthy or the aristocrats. The liberal individual are the people who have bypassed naturalistic mindsets, and bypassing that mindset allows one to gain "reason" and education, as well as owning property. "Liberal individuals" also have the conscious freedom of following social legalities and norms or not, hence "liabilities" "obligations" etc. 

There is now a similarity between what I refer to as the "natural individual" and the "social individual." They both have no choice but to conform because they cannot afford to be discarded by society, unlike the rich. They cannot afford this because of survivalist reasons.

What if we apply the ideas mentioned in international relations? Hobbes talks about the 'vacuum of power' between nations, who represent liberal individuals, but what if these nations are not liberal individuals? After all, the closer one's desire for survival, the more 'naturalistic' it is. Perhaps states are simply animals with no common enemy; no predator to prey upon them aside from themselves. There is fear and distrust because there is strong survivalist mindset. 

People, Households(???) and the World.

Our first reading was quite interesting. I don't really understand the emphasis on the households though. I don't believe the central point of social relations lies within studying household; it would not help in gaining further understanding of development. The greater point of my own learning, after all, is to gain an understanding of the social system, if there is indeed a system.

A very important idea that I found recently is the dynamicity or the elasticity of social order or power relations. The author uses a lot of female adjectives and that may hint as to why she focuses on father-mother relations wherein the old American nuclear family gifts the father the greatest authority. I believe there is unnecessary urgency to investigate this power system. The household unit is easily influence by the greater society, this means that it is dynamic as plastic. What would benefit greater understanding is a study of the factor with the greatest effect over time. Human relations, unlike scientific relations, is marked by it's dynamics, which is either sourced from the complexity of human behavior or the often referenced "free will." But, really, households? The auhor has enough understanding of how social humans are, so why does she start with the household? For us To be able to relate ourseselves to the greater system? To let readers feel the relevance of social happenings?

Social relations, isn't it simply a matter of finding the most static variables and relating those variables to other more dynamic variables? I believe that's how they usually do it in conventional science. They try to find relations between what can be controlled and what can't be controlled. So can the household affect the social? Largely unlikely.

The first few pages, however, referenced plenty of Hobbes' ideas. It talked about realism; How states behave like primal conflictive animals as oppose to cooperative cities. She talked about Hobbes was contradictingly living in a non-realist international system, about the entire Europe linked together by powerful kings, Queenz, Popes etc. I find this interesting because it led me into thinking about the industrial age producing certain economic powers to the public, the public creating republic states, and these states introducing the realist system Hobbes envisioned. I haven't read much of Hobbes writings, but he seems to have some interesting ideas.

She talked about diamonds and emotional relationships as being a tool of the economic system as well. An expected considering her own demography, I guess.